Religious Right and the Republican Party

[TheMentat]

These latest quotes being dug up regarding Palin, and a number of the responses from board members whom I'd consider to be "Goldwater Conservatives" (for lack of a better term) has got me thinking.

I know for a fact that some of the Republican vote over the past couple of decades has been holding their noses while casting votes for the party, as its platform and members have been steadily influenced by the religious right. They presumably see the religious parts of the platform as being a necessary evil fo furthering the cause of smaller government. However, it would seem that, if there were a more moderate (read: less liberal/socialist/whatever) platform on the other ticket, a meaningful number of traditionally Republican voters would even consider voting on that ticket.

My question is how many. At some point, the Republican party may have to do some soul searching, when the number of people turned off from the religious aspect of the party's platform becomes larger than the number of people gathered.

With this in mind, I've created a poll. Ideally respondents should not include people who would never vote for a fiscally conservative platform.

[Burnin' oil]

To what religious aspects do you refer?

[TheMentat]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

To what religious aspects do you refer?

If you don't see any, you should vote the second choice.

[varmint]

obama's church teaches that the C.I.A created A.I.D.S. to kill black people.

face it. this country was created by and for right wing religious gun nuts. the rest of you are just along for the ride.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

A candidate's religious beliefs are their own. For one, I could care less what they believe. However, one of our core freedoms in this country - in fact one of the reasons we even HAVE a country today, is because of the notions of (1) religious freedom and (2) separation of church and state. If a candidate (any candidate) would seek to undermine that, I could care less what else they believe in - they're done in my book.

We need down-to-earth, well-grounded secular leaders that are going to deal with secular problems. If they want to (privately) seek the guidance of religious leaders, pastors, ministers or whatever, or pray for guidance - that's fine too. Whatever works for them to help them decide. But at the end of the day, I need to know I can trust them to call the shots based on their OWN decision-making process, not simply defer to someone else's.

Similarly I think anyone who would use political office as a cudgel to bludgeon those with alternative beliefs into submission is an enemy of the principles most dear to our founding fathers and to our notion of liberty as a free people. Such individuals should never be elected to ANY position of public trust or authority, under any circumstance.

Keep government out of religion and keep religion out of government. Period. End of story. It's no more complicated than that. Why some people constantly feel the need to ignore this premise or sidestep it is troubling.

[Burnin' oil]

Originally Posted by TheMentat

If you don't see any, you should vote the second choice.

Thanks for the explanation.

[VincentVega]

This is my primary concern about voting republican. I really dont care about anyone's religious beliefs, as long as they keep it to themselves or those that ask. I am concerned about judges appointed based on religious beliefs, especially when they are counter to current law.

Things like abortion, gay rights and education not based on a religious document to me are basic concepts, something I want government to stay out of. At some point personal choice and responsibility were key elements of being a republican.

[Jim Richards]

...and corporate welfare. That's a key element of being a Republican, too.

[red-beard]

I picked the middle one, not because I'm a "Yellow dog" Republican, but because the religious part doesn't matter very much to me.

[legion]

Originally Posted by red-beard

I picked the middle one, not because I'm a "Yellow dog" Republican, but because the religious part doesn't matter very much to me.

Same here. It's a lot like abortion. It's an issue that gets both sides fired up when the reality is that very little is ever going to change on this front.

[Jim727]

"Keep government out of religion and keep religion out of government. Period. End of story."

+ 1 (I was going to say "Amen")

[BeyGon]

Republicans, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and I still don't go to church.
I don't see a problem.
Blacks and poor have voted Democrat since at least the 30s and are still poor.
I see a problem.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by varmint

face it. this country was created by and for right wing religious gun nuts. the rest of you are just along for the ride.

The Pilgrims were on to something..

[Mo_Gearhead]

Try this one on:

So I'm running for POTUS. My platform is based on these beliefs:
__________________

There is NO GOD. GOD IS DEAD. THERE NEVER WAS A GOD.

ALL religions are crutches, used by weak individuals to inspire HOPE and prey on the fools (IE: send money!) and the fantasy that they will live eternally on some gold paved street, in a condo next door to (Buddha, Allah, Jesus ...etc.) and with all their pre-deceased pets.

If elected, I will BAN all religions. Ideas like (oh, let me think...) those spelled out in the 'Ten Commandment's are worthless in the society I will build ...where no one has any guilt, nothing is out of bounds, there are no core values and we will all share everything, equally.

No rich CEO's, no class envy, no poverty, no one goes hungry, unclothed or un-housed. I promise you a nation of ...generic ...clones!

___________________

Now which party, most closely, resembles MY imaginary platform?

[Jim727]

Originally Posted by varmint

face it. this country was created by and for right wing religious gun nuts. the rest of you are just along for the ride.

Slept through your American History classes, eh?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

I promise you a nation of ...generic ...clones

Bring on the clones.

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "Bring on the clones."
_____________

No...that's, Send in the clowns!
(politics man, politics!)

[tobster1911]

Middle choice for me.

Does anyone think that political figures are supposed to not hold any personal opinions? Or are they only allowed personal opinions that are popular to you?

I will vote for someone based on their character and actions. Not their own personal opinions.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Jim727

Slept through your American History classes, eh?

You mean that part where the puritans (a very conservative religious group) fled England because of religious persecution, landed at Plymouth rock and settled in Jamestown to establish a new community based on strong religious beliefs and values?
Yep, lots of people slept through that class.

[Jim727]

No - they were conservative religiously, not necessarily politically; however the puritans did not establish the United States. Also, the puritans left to be allowed the freedom to pursue a religion other than the gov't endorsed one.

The United States was founded by a group of brilliant men - arguably the Liberals of their time - with direct experience of the abuses of gov't establishment of official religion, among other things. Unlike today, the Founding Fathers were able to think abstractly regarding the applicable principles as opposed to the immediate passion. Separation of church and state underpins the founding of this country and makes possible the freedom for each citizen to practice whatever belief they may hold dear. No separation = no freedom.